A WW3 scenario

[RF]

With the current situation in Ukraine now a virtual stalemate - the Russian Army bled and degraded while Ukraine doesn't have the firepower or manpower to throw the Russians out - we could consider a variation of events from the start of this war.

Russia is part of a bloc which arguably comprises China, Belarus, North Korea and potentially India and Syria.

Suppose on 24 February 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine and on that day an incident takes place in the Dardenelles involving Russian warships attempting to leave the Black Sea and entering the Med. Turkey has closed the straits to Russian warships and tries to block the Russian ships, which open fire and in doing so manage to sink/ damage several merchant ships, including one British and one American. NATO Article 5 is invoked and within a week the bloc of Russia, Belarus, China, North Korea, India and Syria is at war with all the NATO countries plus France, Ukraine, Moldova, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand. President Macron of France makes an informal agreement with Shi, Putin and the Russian Army commanders that both sides refrain from first use of theatre and battlefield nuclear weapons.

How would a purely conventional war between these two blocs pan out?

[Byron Angel]

The Deep State would have a record year in terms of return on investment .....

Byron

[paul.mercer]

I would take the 'no first use of battlefield nukes' agreement with a very large pinch of salt as far as Putin is concerned. If I was NATO I would have all my nuclear((together with chemical and Biological weapons - which, despite denials I am sure exist in one or two Nato countries) ready for instant use as I do not think that given the mess they are making in Ukraine, Russia, even with all its allies could take on the rest of the world in a conventional battle and whoever is losing will use the these weapons to gain an advantage.
As I posted before, an excellent book called 'Red Storm Rising' by Tom Clancy gives an account of WW3 but without nukes, its only fiction but well worth a read.

[paul.mercer]

Double post deleted, sorry!

[RF]

The scenario by Tom Clancy was based in the 1980's with the Warsaw Pact invading West Germany without any Chinese involvement. A very similar scenario that nearly happened in 1983 with the Able Archer exercise....

Today we are not only without the Warsaw Pact, but virtually all the non-USSR members and some former Soviet republics are in NATO. The western border of conflict would be on Russia itself - which illustrates the previous Russian concern about the ever eastward expansion of NATO.

This I think would be an entirely different conflict than that which Clancy was dealing with as the main military power fighting NATO and its allies is China. With India also involved the focus I think would switch to Asia and the Pacific/Indian Ocean theatre, especially if Russia collapses politically and militarily. Indeed Russia could be as much of a liability to China as was fascist Italy to nazi Germany or the the Austro-Hungarian empire to imperial Germany.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr. RF,
I respectfully disagree with your last sentence: Russian military assets and preparation may be not ideal for an aggression war, but, as it was against Napoleon and Germany, Russian capability of defending their own country is almost unlimited (like Ucranians are currently demonstrating on much reduced scale against Russians themselves): good luck to anyone who would try (without having learnt anything from past history) to invade Russia again (without making use of nuclear weapons at least).
This would leave China free to concentrate on Eastern theatre without having to worry too much about her western flank, while supporting Russia with her production capabilities. IMHO, Russia alliance would be key factor in WW3 scenario: actual situation is a big issue, with Russia "delivered" to China by "Western" sanctions.

Also, I'm not sure all NATO countries would fulfill their Article 5 "promise": Turkey (eighth army in the world on paper) has not supported sanctions against Russia. Another question mark is Pakistan position. I'm personally not confident at all that "Westerns" powers alone can still win a WW, despite their technological superiority.

Hopefully none will know ever.

hans

[paul.mercer]

Hi Hans,
I think you are right about not all NATO joining in, even at the stage where we are now it seems a bit doubtful whether Germany, Austria and France are entirely ready to commit themselves to providing many weapons because of the gas situation, it will be interesting to see if they will pay for it in Roubles and if not, whether Putin will cut them off. Frankly, I do not pin a lot of hope on any large amount of intervention from the EU if things start to escalate, by the time Brussels has got permission from 27 countries to take action and agree who is going to take charge of operations, Putin might well be at Germany's border- it is his stated intention to take back all that Russia has lost!
I hate to blow trumpets, but it seems that it is good old US and UK that will come to the rescue of Europe yet again!

[paul.mercer]

The scenario by Tom Clancy was based in the 1980's with the Warsaw Pact invading West Germany without any Chinese involvement. A very similar scenario that nearly happened in 1983 with the Able Archer exercise....

Today we are not only without the Warsaw Pact, but virtually all the non-USSR members and some former Soviet republics are in NATO. The western border of conflict would be on Russia itself - which illustrates the previous Russian concern about the ever eastward expansion of NATO.

This I think would be an entirely different conflict than that which Clancy was dealing with as the main military power fighting NATO and its allies is China. With India also involved the focus I think would switch to Asia and the Pacific/Indian Ocean theatre, especially if Russia collapses politically and militarily. Indeed Russia could be as much of a liability to China as was fascist Italy to nazi Germany or the the Austro-Hungarian empire to imperial Germany.

Thanks for that RF, you are quite right of course, but it was a bl''dy good read!

[Byron Angel]

War is broadly looked down upon as a foreign policy measure by the general public (although peace arguably seems difficult to find in many regions of the plant). But, that having been said, let us not forget that its efficacy as a population control measure might be seen by certain parties as beneficial to their long term goals for our little overcrowded planet Earth.



B

[RF]

: Russian military assets and preparation may be not ideal for an aggression war, but, as it was against Napoleon and Germany, Russian capability of defending their own country is almost unlimited (like Ucranians are currently demonstrating on much reduced scale against Russians themselves): good luck to anyone who would try (without having learnt anything from past history) to invade Russia again (without making use of nuclear weapons at least).

hans

Napoleon and Hitler set out to conquer Russia by occupying essentially the land mass west of the Urals, in the latter case permanently by colonisation.

In the modern context Russia could be taken out militarily by degrading its armed forces and industrial capacity, to achieve that it would not be necessary to conquer and occupy that land mass. More like the Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905 than Barbarossa 1941.
Also Russia has a substantially smaller population reserve than the USSR.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr. RF,
while I agree on smaller population of Russia compared to URSS, I think strategy from Russia will be as in WWII: move all production to East Russia (protected by China) and possibly make use of 'unlimited' human resources from China and India too.
Without occupying land mass, no definitive result can be achieved on either side. On longer period conflict, human resources of China, India and Russia may well pose a serious threat to Europe.
Eastern front may be a bit easier for USA against China in the Pacific, but, again, without major land mass conquests (made simply impossible by disparity of population/army despite technological advantage).

hans

[RF]

Depends on how the human resources of China, Russia and India are used.

They have vast populations - but in the past this hasn't prevented India from becoming a British possession (with bits held by the Portuguese), Russia suffering huge losses in every war it has fought and China being picked off by European powers and Japan.

These countries are authoritarian, even India, and a lack of real freedom and enterprise can and will hold them back. You can see that in the Russian fiasco in Ukraine.

BTW Russia isn't fully protected in Siberia and its Arctic regions - it can be vulnerable to attack directly from North America across the North Pole. Conventional maps don't show this as they portray a ''flat Earth'' basis of the world whereas of course the world is round. The technology of warfare can now make the polar regions a fully fledged battlefield....

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Something I don't quite understand. Putin originally stated that he wanted to take back all the Russia had lost, in a more recent statement he apparently said he wanted to establish a Euroasian corridor (whatever that is) from Moscow to Lisbon! Surely anyone coming out with this sort of stuff has got to be a bit demented. Surely and his senior military and civil advisors (who are not fools) must begin to realise how dangerous he is becoming to world peace and may consider taking action to prevent it?

[Byron Angel]

Gentlemen,
Something I don't quite understand. Putin originally stated that he wanted to take back all the Russia had lost, in a more recent statement he apparently said he wanted to establish a Euroasian corridor (whatever that is) from Moscow to Lisbon! Surely anyone coming out with this sort of stuff has got to be a bit demented. Surely and his senior military and civil advisors (who are not fools) must begin to realise how dangerous he is becoming to world peace and may consider taking action to prevent it?

Hi Paul,
Not trying to be snarky here. But, if you do not understand what Putin's "Euroasian Corridor" concept entails, how can you reasonably deem it to be "demented"? The Chinese "Belt and Road Initiative" crosses innumerable national borders and is clearly intended to span the globe, yet no one (TTBOMK) describes it as crazy.

Byron

[paul.mercer]

Hi Byron,
Your are absolutely correct of course, I don't really understand what the Eurasian corridor is supposed to be, I thought it was yet another of Putin's ideas to either conquer or have a serious Russian influence over almost all of Europe. What would your definition be?
All the best,
Paul